Next up projections
vs Virginia
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Gerald J. Ford Stadium (University Park) · Virginia (FBS, ACC)
Our call: SMU by 6.9Lean
All three models favor SMU. The line, shown for comparison only, has SMU by 7.5.
The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›
Regression watch: Flattered last game: the 9-point win ran 8 points ahead of the play. In a 2022–25 study, teams flattered by more than 7 fell about 3 points short of their season form the next game. More ›
Schedule: Played the 95th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -7.1); 42nd-toughest remaining (+6.2). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 at Florida State (+7.9)
- Week 2 vs UC Davis (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
- Week 3 at Louisville (+9.8)
- Week 4 vs Missouri State (-15.9)
- Week 5 vs Boston College (-4.4)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 vs Virginia (+3.6)
- Week 8 vs California (-0.6)
- Week 9 at Syracuse (-0.3)
- Week 10 vs Virginia Tech (+8.0)
- Week 11 vs Wake Forest (+8.9)
- Week 12 at Notre Dame (+31.7)
- Week 13 at Stanford (-7.6)
Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.
Series: SMU leads 1–0 · last: SMU 33–7, 2024
Series history 1 meeting since 2024
- All-time: SMU leads 1–0 (1 meeting since 2024)
- Last meeting: SMU 33–7, 2024, Scott Stadium
- Streak: none
- At Gerald J. Ford Stadium: first meeting at Gerald J. Ford Stadium
- Biggest margins: SMU 33–7 (2024) · Virginia has not won
- Since 2000: SMU leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | SMU 33–7 | Scott Stadium |
| Rating | SMU | Virginia |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +12.8 #26 | +8.5 #44 |
| Elo | 1689 | 1592 |
Projected margin for SMU · three models and the line, side by side
How to read this
- SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
- Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
- The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from SMU's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
- Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
- In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (SMU); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
- "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
- Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
- Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
- After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
- Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›
Efficiency matchup · season to date · SMU 5 games, Virginia 6 games
Edge: SMU wins 4 of 5
SMU moves the ball better, stops plays better, is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays. Virginia allows fewer big plays.
-
50%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 48%
-
37%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 39%
-
22%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 18%
-
1.26✓ Big playson offense 1.12
-
1.42 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.17
Run game, head to head · season to date
SMU's runs work 45% of the time; Virginia's run defense allows 42%. Virginia's runs work 50% of the time; SMU's run defense allows 43%.
More numbers
| Measure | SMU | Virginia | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 49.8% | 47.9% | SMU |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.26 | 1.12 | SMU |
| Def. success rate allowed | 37.0% | 39.5% | SMU |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.42 | 1.17 | Virginia |
| Havoc created | 21.6% | 17.7% | SMU |
- Run game, success rate: SMU offense 45.5% · Virginia defense allows 41.5% · edge: even
- Run game, success rate: Virginia offense 49.7% · SMU defense allows 43.3% · edge: Virginia
- Run game, PPA per play: SMU offense +0.02 · Virginia defense allows +0.11 · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: Virginia offense +0.23 · SMU defense allows +0.09 · edge: Virginia
- Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.
How to read this
- Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
- The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
- In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
- Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
- These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
- Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›
Injuries AI-assisted 1
Gathered by an AI model from public reporting, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.
"AI-assisted" means gathered by an AI model from public reporting. When a conference publishes an official availability list for SMU's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›
-
Ira Singleton IV DEinjuryOutNoted Sat Oct 3, 9:00 AM CT.ACC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 3, 9:00 AM CT / 10:00 AM ET, for Boston College at SMU, Sat Oct 3. Reporting: Expected to be out for the year.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 12
Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.
- SMU2NFL Week 5
-
No. 24 Mustangs Face Cavaliers | Saturday at 11 AM CT
Saturday, October 17, 2026 – 11:00 a.m. CT
-
Lashlee Named to Dodd Trophy Midseason Watch List
ATLANTA (SMU) – Head Football Coach Rhett Lashlee was named to the Dodd Trophy's Midseason Watch List in a release by Boddy Dodd Coach of the Year Foundation…
-
SMU Athletics, Texas Capital Announce First All-Sports Jersey Patch Partnership for a Texas Power Four Program
PHOTO GALLERY HERE
-
SMU agrees to jersey patch deal with Texas Capital
SMU has agreed to an all-sports jersey patch sponsorship with Texas Capital, the biggest in school history.
- Game time vs Cal is set
-
BREAKING: 4-star Humble (Tex.)
Atascocita EDGE David Dotson has committed to SMU.
-
SMU offers 2030 Waller (Tex.)
WR Makhy Adams.
-
Jennings Among Top 15 For Golden Arm Award
BALTIMORE, M.D.
- Lance McIlhenny Selected To Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic Hall of Fame
- SMU2NFL Week 4
-
White and Lee Pick Up ACC Weekly Honors
CHARLOTTE, N.C.
1 entry about games now final not shown.
Score and result
SMU 25, Boston College 16W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ +20.1 ✓ · Elo +15.3 ✓ · Our model +18.1 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +21.0 · actual +9 · Closest: Elo
SMU was as low as 28% and won
- Q1 1:47 · 1st & 10 · 60% → 28%(01:47) No Huddle-Shotgun #10 M.McKenzie pass complete deep left to #23 E.Dickens caught at SMU18, for 43 yards to the SMU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:41, 1ST DOWN #99 L.Lombardo kick attempt good (H: #96 B.LaFollette, LS: #49 C.Crook)
- Q1 1:35 · 1st & 10 · 28% → 54%(01:35) No Huddle-Shotgun #7 K.Jennings pass complete short left to #2 J.Hale caught at SMU21, for 8 yards to the SMU25 (#2 K.Price)
- Q2 10:04 · 3rd & 4 · 57% → 74%(10:04) Shotgun #7 K.Jennings rush right for 4 yards gain to the BC00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:05 #97 B.Baird kick attempt good (H: #43 W.McSparron, LS: #48 M.Tribbett)
Home at Gerald J. Ford Stadium · Sat Oct 3, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Boston College (FBS, ACC)
Opponent for every game-level number: Boston College (FBS, ACC).
- By quarter: SMU 6-7-6-6 · Boston College 10-0-0-6
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: SMU #21 · AP: SMU #24
- Pregame Elo: SMU 1695, Boston College 1375
- Postgame win probability: 75.8%
Verdict
The scoreboard flattered SMU: the +9 margin ran 8 points ahead of the +1 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.08 vs +0.06, success rate 36% vs 40%) (Boston College turned it over once).
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Even game split 2–2
SMU got more from each play and was more disruptive. Boston College moved the ball better and hit the bigger plays.
-
36% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓40%
-
+0.08✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.06
-
1.38 Big playssize of the good plays ✓1.60
-
15%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 14%
More numbers
SMU ran 64 plays, Boston College 65. Each number is that team's offense; Boston College's column is also what SMU's defense allowed.
| Measure | SMU | Boston College | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.08 | +0.06 | SMU |
| Total PPA | +4.9 | +3.6 | SMU |
| Success rate | 35.9% | 40.0% | Boston College |
| Explosiveness | 1.38 | 1.60 | Boston College |
| Havoc created | 15.4% | 14.3% | SMU |
- Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.
How to read this
- The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
- A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
- Metrics explained ›
Top performers
SMU players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.
Passing
None.
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Jennings QB | 29% | +2.1 | +0.23 |
| Jalen Cooper WR | 3% | +1.7 | +1.66 |
| Kendrick Raphael RB | 48% | +1.2 | +0.08 |
| Derrick McFall WR | 16% | -0.9 | -0.18 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Derrick McFall WR | 13% | +2.5 | +0.62 |
| Jalen Cooper WR | 19% | +1.5 | +0.25 |
| Yannick Smith WR | 23% | +1.4 | +0.20 |
| Yamir Knight WR | 10% | +0.2 | +0.08 |
By play type
| Measure | SMU | Boston College | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.02 | +0.01 | SMU |
| Rushing success | 29.0% | 44.8% | Boston College |
| Passing PPA | +0.10 | +0.10 | SMU |
| Passing success | 41.9% | 34.3% | SMU |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.20 | -0.15 | SMU |
| Standard downs success | 45.7% | 46.2% | Boston College |
| Passing downs PPA | -0.07 | +0.36 | Boston College |
| Passing downs success | 24.1% | 30.8% | Boston College |
Havoc detail — SMU defense: TFL 6, sacks 3, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 65 snaps. Boston College defense: TFL 6, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 63 snaps.
Drives
A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.
Recruiting
SMU's 2026 class: #32 · 225.82 points.
| Measure | SMU | Boston College |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 764.5 #31 of 138 |
660.0 #71 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 15 in, 26 out
Arrivals (15)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yannick Smith WR | East Carolina | 4 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Theo Melin Ohrstrom TE | Texas A&M | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Kendrick Raphael RB | California | 4 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Christian Davis DL | Louisiana Tech | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Caden Marshall LB | Bowling Green | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Ira Singleton EDGE | South Florida | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jarvis Lee CB | South Florida | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Randy Pittman Jr. TE | Florida State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Trey Jackson TE | Texas Tech | 3 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Jalen Hale WR | Alabama | 3 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
+5 more not shown (15 total).
Departures (26)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Omari Abor EDGE | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 17, 2025 |
| Braeden Flowers EDGE | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 2, 2026 |
| Adam Moore TE | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Billy Walton III EDGE | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Kyle Ferm LB | Liberty | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| DJ Warner EDGE | Washington State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Chris Johnson Jr. RB | Clemson | 3 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| King Large OT | Missouri State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Zakye Barker LB | North Texas | 3 | Immediate | Jan 15, 2026 |
| Elijah Pratt S | UAB | 3 | Immediate | Jan 15, 2026 |
+16 more not shown (26 total).
2026 commits · 21
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Rhodes RB | Dallas, TX | 4 | 0.9318 |
| Drew Evers IOL | Flower Mound, TX | 4 | 0.9196 |
| Evan Goodwin OT | Bauxite, AR | 4 | 0.9038 |
| Sam Utu IOL | Orange, CA | 4 | 0.8969 |
| Aljour Miles II WR | Kaufman, TX | 4 | 0.8911 |
| EJ Kelly RB | Spring, TX | 4 | 0.8901 |
| Hudson Woods EDGE | Spring Branch, TX | 3 | 0.8856 |
| X'Zavier Barnett ATH | Yoakum, TX | 3 | 0.8844 |
| Jakai Anderson WR | New Orleans, LA | 3 | 0.8833 |
| Kenneth Goodwin III LB | Miami, FL | 3 | 0.8833 |
| Max Wright OT | Melissa, TX | 3 | 0.8833 |
| Zack Turner TE | Duncanville, TX | 3 | 0.8811 |
| Amontre Harris EDGE | Humble, TX | 3 | 0.8767 |
| I'Zayah Young LB | San Marcos, TX | 3 | 0.8767 |
| Dakota Dickson DL | Danville, CA | 3 | 0.8756 |
+6 more not shown (21 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for SMU in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 56.9% | 219.8 | 57.8% |
| Passing | 96.6% | 144.4 | 99.3% |
| Receiving | 37.2% | 75.1 | 34.5% |
| Rushing | 0.9% | 0.3 | 30.3% |
A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.